Regent classes

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 15:26, daniel mcsorley wrote:

>
> > > I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> > > temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> > > to sway me on this point. The head of a temple should be capable of
> > > spells if he wants RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.
> >
> > Agreed. I`d go even further and say that the head of a faith/set of
> > temple holdings need not be a priest to cast realm spells - there are
> > enough priests within the organization for this already. e.g. The Queen
> > of England is not a priest, but is the head of the Church of England.
> > And why not collect RP too - the prestige is only truly useful within
> > the organization.
>
> Casting priest realm spells- do you see it drawing from the congregation,
> like wizards do from sources, or does it come from the god? If it comes
> from the god, the regent needs to be a priest to cast them. If from the
> congregation, then I can see your argument for non-priestly realm casting.

Well both really. i.e. must both exist. The god and the followers. I
interpret the temple level to be a proportion of the province
population. (somewhat strict BR interpretation given many persons
preference for interpreting BR province levels as pure development)

But equally, the temple holding must have some actual priests as well.
I hadn`t thought about it so much in terms of micro-requirements. i.e.
how many worshipers, priests, buildings, altars etc -- rather just
assuming that `what was necessary` was contained within the definition
of a `temple level x`.

Better vassalage/lieutenant rules would probably make the question
obsolete though.

>
> > [As a side point: I don`t really like the `designated heir` as a
> > primary/single method of succession. I think the incumbent such have
> > some say, but except for source networks, the organization itself
> > should more commonly decide on the `heir`.]
>
> The in-game mechanics of selecting the heir can be anything the DM and
> players come up with. In Anuire, most landed realms apparently go to the
> oldest child. A temple might have an official heirarchy which decides who
> gets the chair when the old priest kicks it. But to ensure that these in
> fact happen, and that the realm doesn`t just dissolve on the regent`s
> death, the incumbent has to designate an heir and Invest him as such.

Whereas, I`m inclined to say that such rules for succession are more
than just custom when it comes to deciding the realm`s monarch. A regent
that skips over his first-born son may be able to bribe/coerce a priest
regent into investing someone else as `heir` -- but how will the
`people` (and, quite importantly, the other nobles) feel about this.
(Of course investing his bloodline may be a different matter - and it`s
entirely possible that a prior-commoner with a bloodline of 35 will be
preferred over a matural-heir with a weaker bloodline)
Anyway, not really on topic ....


>
> > Again, though: What`s your answer to point (2) ?
> > i.e.
> > How many classes can you collect regency for ? (cumulatively)
> >
> > The implication is:
> > "As many base/pre classes as you take"
>
> Yep. You qualify for the prestige class, and then you take levels in it,
> and you earn RP.
>
> The simplest solution to your objection here (that a regent can get RP
> from too many sources) is to make them exclusive, or to make them so that
> you can`t go above level 1 in more than 1 (to allow for clerics to get
> half RP from law holdings as in the original rules, for example).

It`s not so much an objection as an observation that it didn`t solve the
basic question (left unanswered in original BR) of what to do with
characters with more than one class -- given a decided emphasis on
restricted collection. I think you are on the right track - just need to
balance the situation for those players who will take as many base
classes as they want - there should be an advantage and a disadvantage
-- in domain terms alone -- for doing so, rather than relying on the
multi-classing rules to solve the problem.

In 2e collecting for all would be a distinct no-no. The use of character
class to dictate regent attitude isn`t that bad - but we still want
realm regents that are rogues, priests, and wizards to fill in a full
spectrum of government types. So the better solution is to not rely on
character class to define it at all.

But in 3e, the matter is less straightforward. Character class has a
different meaning in 3e, that of ability rather than attitude. Dictating
regent attitude by (additional) character class in 3e hasn`t fully
realized the goal. The exclusive idea is okay (there`s that word again),
but what if you want to change?


>
> > > I think this was intentional- the land and beliefs of people in
> > > Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that simply lording over them
> > > gives you power.
> >
> > Yes, and how did I change that?
>
> Originally, everyone could do it, now you either pick provinces OR law OR
> temples, etc. For instance, Talinie would be screwed.

Really? Let`s see shall we? [I don`t really want to push `my rules are
better than yours` type of argument, that wasn`t really my point - more
that they are more similar in effect than they are different - but in
defense of the indefensible...]

DP from temples is 33
DP from provinces is 18
DP from law is 10

Under standard BR, DP = 33 + 18 + 10/2 = 56
But, Donalls bloodline is 30, therefore RP is min(30, 56) = 30

Under my `regent classes` DP = max(33, 18, 10) = 33
I actually use RP = max(bloodline, DP) = max(30, 33) = 33,
but even min(33, 30) is still 30.

I`d give Donalls 33 RP (even without the `max` rule it`s still 30)
Original rules would give her 30 RP

Certainly, Talinie isn`t screwed. (or saved for that matter - the
heretic! variation of 0% or +10%)

In fact it makes very little difference to the great majority of the
sourcebook realms. Tuarhievel is the most changed of the realms (in
RoE). (although he get`s saved by the `max` rule IMC)

Source DP = 34
Law DP = 13
Province DP = 22

How that adds up to 69 (the sourcebook value), I don`t know. But
Fhileraene is one of those multi-classed characters, so either their
math is wrong (34+13+22) = 79, or there is a secret formula they didn`t
let us in on. Fhileraene`s bloodline is 55, so by the `min` rule he
should top out at 55 in any case.
There is however, absolutely zero support for the `min` rule in any of
the sourcebooks. Mostly they use the `max` rule - or come to a number
that cannot be explained using either rule.

So, in this case: (pick one)
Original rules(min rule): 55 RP
Original rules(max rule): 79 RP
Sourcebook data(untouched): 69 RP

My home rules (max rule): 55 RP -- variations of 0%, -30%, -20%
My Home rules (min rule): 34 RP -- variations of -38%, -57%, -51%


>
> > > Drawing power from something
> > > less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
> > > rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
> > > mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.
> >
> > But not `fewer` regents surely? Isn`t it more likely that there would be
> > more non-realm regents than realm regents?
>
> I didn`t mean there would be numerically fewer guilders or temple regents
> than province regents- I meant that fewer have the ability to get RP from
> temples. Anyone could get it from provinces, only a couple classes could
> from temples.
>
> What you`ve essentially done with your five regent roles is create
> templates which give benefits but no real penalties.
Ah, can`t have it both ways - either I`m screwing Talinie or I`m not.
Hmmm what does Donalls look like under all that armor?

Seriously though, there`s less than 5% variation in RP collection across
all domains in the sourcebooks. (Which proves little I know) What it
does do is:

(-) Specializing in a certain holding type returns the best RP for the
investment in actions/whatever, but ..

(-) A more diverse set of holdings allows for greater freedom of action

(-) I find it balances out quite nicely, realm regents are more likely
to invade a neighboring realm than take over guilds -- and guilds are
more likely to `war` (contest) over trade routes than attempt to usurp a
realm. --- which is contrary to how things used to happen.

> Do you give them an
> ECL modifier? And they can pick a new template every domain turn if they
> want? That`s a bit flighty compared to the original state of things.

Details, details. (no 2e or 3e specific concepts involved)

Each regent can (if he has the holdings for it) wear many caps during
the domain turn. A regent in BR (esp. Anuire) typically acts as Head of
State and Head of Government (province and law) - although not always,
e.g. DA controls the government in Taeghas and HK is pretty much a
figurehead. However, in his endeavors/actions he`d be seen as a powerful
wizard and as such still has significant influence.

Flighty?, I miss your point here - especially as I see no real diff
between this and your proposed 3e classes (Q. how many players won`t
take at least two base classes? - A. ? none?)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Keovar wrote:

> Law Regent Requirements
> Proficiency in all Martial Weapons

Why do you think this is important? The Knowledge skills are probably a
fine idea (I might even recommend that all regents be required to have
Diplomacy or Bluff), and I agree that spell casting is essential to Source
Regents, but why is someone who is good with a mace but bad with a
broadsword prevented from becoming an effective police chief?

Yes, it gives fighter-types an avantage at something in the regency
system, but I think this is a mistake: I think pure fighters ought to be
rather bad at administering realms, and require that they focus on
something other than being good at personal combat.

This might be a cultural thing -- in Vosgaard, perhaps you can only
exercise the power of law regency over people whom you can personally beat
up, but in Khinasi I would prefer that most law regents actually be
priests of Avani dedicated to understanding and interpreting the
intellectual aspects of the law as a body of knowledge. In the latter
case, requiring martial prowess to serve as a judge strikes me as highly
inappropriate to the society.

Sure, the individual people employed as ground-level enforcers who by
following orders bring about the results of law holding domain actions
ought to be capable of engaging a criminal in a fistfight, but I see no
reason to require that the person giving the orders should necessarily be
good at carrying them out.

That is the reason I distinguish Source Regents from all others, whom I
tend to lump together: ruling provinces and law, temple and guild holdings
is all about giving people orders, which is about mental stats (especially
Cha) and skills based on them (especially Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive
and Knowledges) rather than prowess at picking locks or killing monsters;
but ruling source holdings is about giving *mebhaighl* orders, which is
basically the same thing as spell casting AFAICT.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
> > Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
> > Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
> > Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.
>
> I have generally supported the "RP is magical energy" argument over the
> "RP is political influence" argument, but now that you put it this way I
> may have to change my mind. Getting power from human life or belief in
> gods I could see, but getting power from the consumer confidence index
> strikes me as too outlandish for anyone but regents of temples to Sera.
> Captains of industry should have political power because they are rolling
> in dough and the favors to trade that follow the money, without regard to
> whether the peasants prefer Adam Smith to Karl Marx.

I didn`t necessarily mean the `consumer confidence index`, heh. Just the
way BR people every day pass around copper, gold and silver, there`s
belief there in each exchange, the belief that the coins are worth
something and that they are being traded for something of roughly
equivalent worth. That`s the only way I could justify in my mind getting
RP from trade routes.

I don`t think RP is just political power, because then unblooded lords
could get it too. I think it`s similar to the way D&D gods get power from
the belief of their worshippers; same way for regents. So it`s more:
RP = belief in power
than
RP = power.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Sumerian priests and medieval Popes, if run
> in BR, would have been big law and province regents,

Agreed, but the Pope`s primary power was not that he was effectively king
of a portion of central Italy, but that every single temple regent on the
continent was his vassal, and all those temple holdings were pretty
faithful at following his orders to either support or oppose all the
province regents` actions, and even Agitate or Contest against them.

Just being a temple (or any other kind of) regent gives political
influence, because once you have it, all the other regents had better
either negotiate with you or take you out, lest you use your position to
make trouble for them.

> In a game with miraculous divine spellcasting, though, I think
> religious power deserves to be counted separately from economic power
> and political power. We have no historical parallel here, though, so
> it`s hard for me to justify that concretely.

I agree that spellcasting makes a difference: Bless Land and Curse Land
can be a very effective carrot-and-stick system. However, I think that
even without spellcasting, temple regents should have political power.

> Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
> Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
> Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
> Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.

I have generally supported the "RP is magical energy" argument over the
"RP is political influence" argument, but now that you put it this way I
may have to change my mind. Getting power from human life or belief in
gods I could see, but getting power from the consumer confidence index
strikes me as too outlandish for anyone but regents of temples to Sera.
Captains of industry should have political power because they are rolling
in dough and the favors to trade that follow the money, without regard to
whether the peasants prefer Adam Smith to Karl Marx.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> > So I`m trying to reconcile 3e`s free-for-all multiclassing with the 2e
> > notion that certain classes get regency from certain holdings.
>
> It`s not a 2e notion - it`s a BR notion. That`s a huge distinction. It
> would be most incorrect to state that "in 2e this happened..." when in
> actuality it is nothing of the sort.

I think it was a 2e thing, though. In that version, character concept was
extremely closely tied to class. With free multiclassing, that`s no
longer the case- this gets taken to its extreme in d20 modern, where
classes are made as transparent as possible and the character concept is
what matters.

When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they did it
by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t completely
well-done in the first place.

The mapping of the (sneaking, trap-finding, back-stabbing rogue) to guild
holdings was so loose that they just went ahead and created a new Guilder
class in the Havens book. The tying of warrior-types to aristocratic
heirarchies of law holdings was similarly poorly defined, and I`m not sure
it was real-world justifiable in the first place. Most kings were not
good personal combatants, and the ones that were (Richard the Lionheart)
are often remembered as poor kings. Those that could do both were rare.

I know /why/ it was done, to create four types of holdings which
corresponded to the four overall character types, and which could coexist
in one area in a way paralleling the teamwork of adventuring parties.
I`m just not sure it was a good enough reason.

So, in 3e, with prestige type classes, I think we get a chance to break
that coupling entirely, from `adventurer class` to `domain type`. I`m not
even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a temple-
however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough to sway me on
this point. The head of a temple should be capable of spells if he wants
RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.

> > I think the prestige/advanced class mechanic provides a good answer here.
> > I`m going to use 4 prestige classes that solve the problem for me, and
> > give a couple of other good features, too. They`re similar to the d20
> > modern advanced classes in that their prereqs are rather low- many
> > characters could go into them after first level in a regular class.
> >
> > Default: All characters gaing full regency from provinces in their realm.
> > No RP is gained from any other holding the character controls.
> > Additionally, by default all actions can only be domain actions- realm
> > actions, affecting multiple holdings, are available only at prestige
> > levels.
>
> Daniels solution suffers only one major drawback (and one minor), as it
> solves (a), (B), but not © above. (A character which `inherits` a
> domain - other than a realm - may be unprepared to collect regency in an
> efficient manner. Of course it could be argued that this would be a poor
> choice of heir for the previous regent to make, however it`s a more
> restrictive choice than previously.

Not much more restrictive. Before, a temple regent had to leave her
holdings to another blooded cleric for it to be fully utilized. The
prestige class way just requires a slight bit more forethought, that you
should groom a potential heir into one of these classes ahead of time (the
requirement is just `blooded scion`, not being a regent, so it`s not hard
to work that far ahead.) In fact, in a good sized temple like the WIT
(for example), you`d probably have a bishop every couple of provinces who
had at least one level in the Templar class, for redundancy or ambition`s
sake.

> In fact (B) is only partially solved as well - characters who wish to
> add holdings of a different type to their base class may gain no
> benefit from them.)

They get money, which is often the main reason for going into another type
of holding. If they want RP, I think they should have to work harder.

> In effect he has created not four but five classes as `realm-ruler` is
> given to all by default. It has the elegance of allowing a character to
> rule any type of domain efficiently regardless of character class.
>
> The minor drawback is that he still hasn`t answered the original
> question (2) above. He`s just changed the `names` of the classes
> involved. It could be argued that it`s a `slip-in-under-the-table`
> argument for `collect from all` but we`ll make all a little more
> difficult. As such it`s tainted with the `not the intention of BR`
> argument.

I`m not trying to just rename the classes, I`m trying to divorce regency
collection from adventuring. So yes, they`re different classes, but a
law-regent isn`t much like a fighter at all. Neither is a guilder much
like a rogue, nor does a templar have to be a powerful priest to guide his
flock. They`re specialized in their administrative field.

> My solution for 2e: (which of course works for 3e as well - but it`s
> much simpler as is less likely to appeal to those who like more
> convoluted systems)
> (1.1) `Regent class` not `character class` determines RP collection.
> (1.2) There are five(5) regent classes; realm, faith, guild, govern, and
> magic --- similar to what Daniel proposes
> (1.3) `Realm` regents collect RP for provinces, `Guild` regents collect
> RP for guilds/trade, etc etc --- Daniels classes have more complex
> collection rules, but are not dissimilar
> (1.4) A regent can have many `regent classes`. There is no cost, no
> penalty or restriction whatsoever. ---
> (1.5) But, a regent may only collect RP for one of his/her regent
> classes at his/her choice - but duh! - usually the one that yields the
> highest RP --- this final piece is an answer to (2), as well as (a),
> (B), and ©

If your realm and governing classes are disjoint, then one cannot gain RP
from both provinces and law at the same time. That was a pretty sizeable
benefit under the original rules, that anyone who ruled a province got RP
for it no matter what else they were. I think this was intentional- the
land and beliefs of people in Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that
simply lording over them gives you power. Drawing power from something
less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.

Also, it looks like a fighter could collect full regency from temples or
sources under this method, and that doesn`t sound right to me. He should
have to demonstrate some magical ability.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they
> did it by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t
> completely well-done in the first place.

Agreed. It was necessary in so far as they wished to avoid creating
additional classes -- but now that we have several NPC classes, and
prestige classes are a dime a dozen, it is no longer so.

> Most kings were not good personal combatants, and the ones that were
> (Richard the Lionheart) are often remembered as poor kings. Those
> that could do both were rare.

This argument has been raised before, and I continue to agree completely.
I think it also applies to priests and thieves, but for wizards I think
domain skill and adventuring skill are largely the same. For all
non-source holdings, power is expressed through being an able
administrator of an organization consisting of a large number of
people; a source regent, however, manages only mebhaighl.

> I know /why/ it was done, to create four types of holdings which
> corresponded to the four overall character types, and which could
> coexist in one area in a way paralleling the teamwork of adventuring
> parties. I`m just not sure it was a good enough reason.

Agreed.

> So, in 3e, with prestige type classes, I think we get a chance to break
> that coupling entirely, from `adventurer class` to `domain type`.

I think base classes can also do the job quite well, such as Kenneth`s
suggestion of 2e Fighter -> 1/3 Fighter, 2/3 Aristocrat.

> I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> to sway me on this point.

And RW religious figures, from Sumerian priests to medieval Popes to
modern televangelists, convince me that being perceived as the provider of
divine guidance is a source of immense political power. I`d suggest at
least half RP for non-spellcaster temple regents.

> The head of a temple should be capable of spells if he wants
> RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.

Personally, I`d only use spellcaster status for realm spells, not RP.

> I`m not trying to just rename the classes, I`m trying to divorce
> regency collection from adventuring.

A fine idea, which I heartily encourage.

> So yes, they`re different classes, but a law-regent isn`t much like a
> fighter at all. Neither is a guilder much like a rogue, nor does a
> templar have to be a powerful priest to guide his flock. They`re
> specialized in their administrative field.

Yes, they`re different from adventurers, but I`m unconvinced they`re very
different from each other. To my mind, temple-regent is actually very
similar to guild-regent, vastly moreso than priest-adventurer is to
rogue-adventurer; in fact, I think temple-regent is much more similar to
guild-regent than temple-regent is to priest-adventurer.

My current thought is to have a single Regent class -- perhaps a sort of
"sub-class", to use the old terminology, of Expert -- which differentiates
temple, guild, and law regents from each other only in specific choices of
rulership skills and feats selected. That is, at 1st level, a Regent
collects full regency from provinces, and perhaps one other holding type
of their choice. Every 3-to-5 levels thereafter, as a class feature they
get to choose an additional holding type from which to collect full
regency. Regency from source holdings, however, would be a metamagic
feat, accessible to blooded wizards (and sorcerers) only -- but to balance
that, wizards would not gain any regency from provinces without taking at
least one level of the Regent class. Class skills would include most of
the Cha-based personal interaction ones (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.) and
relevant Knowledges -- but perhaps, for example, Knowledge (Religion)
would not become a class skill unless and until the feat Rule Holding
(Temple) was selected.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> > When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they did it
> > by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t completely
> > well-done in the first place.
>
> Agreed (perhaps). (unless) Do you mean that regents shouldn`t have
> roles?, or that the roles shouldn`t be assigned by character class?

Yes roles, but not by adventurer class. The regent prestige classes were
an attempt to assign them another way, as are your regent templates (see
below).

> > I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> > temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> > to sway me on this point. The head of a temple should be capable of
> > spells if he wants RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.
>
> Agreed. I`d go even further and say that the head of a faith/set of
> temple holdings need not be a priest to cast realm spells - there are
> enough priests within the organization for this already. e.g. The Queen
> of England is not a priest, but is the head of the Church of England.
> And why not collect RP too - the prestige is only truly useful within
> the organization.

Casting priest realm spells- do you see it drawing from the congregation,
like wizards do from sources, or does it come from the god? If it comes
from the god, the regent needs to be a priest to cast them. If from the
congregation, then I can see your argument for non-priestly realm casting.

> [As a side point: I don`t really like the `designated heir` as a
> primary/single method of succession. I think the incumbent such have
> some say, but except for source networks, the organization itself
> should more commonly decide on the `heir`.]

The in-game mechanics of selecting the heir can be anything the DM and
players come up with. In Anuire, most landed realms apparently go to the
oldest child. A temple might have an official heirarchy which decides who
gets the chair when the old priest kicks it. But to ensure that these in
fact happen, and that the realm doesn`t just dissolve on the regent`s
death, the incumbent has to designate an heir and Invest him as such.

> Again, though: What`s your answer to point (2) ?
> i.e.
> How many classes can you collect regency for ? (cumulatively)
>
> The implication is:
> "As many base/pre classes as you take"

Yep. You qualify for the prestige class, and then you take levels in it,
and you earn RP.

The simplest solution to your objection here (that a regent can get RP
from too many sources) is to make them exclusive, or to make them so that
you can`t go above level 1 in more than 1 (to allow for clerics to get
half RP from law holdings as in the original rules, for example).

> > I think this was intentional- the land and beliefs of people in
> > Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that simply lording over them
> > gives you power.
>
> Yes, and how did I change that?

Originally, everyone could do it, now you either pick provinces OR law OR
temples, etc. For instance, Talinie would be screwed.

> > Drawing power from something
> > less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
> > rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
> > mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.
>
> But not `fewer` regents surely? Isn`t it more likely that there would be
> more non-realm regents than realm regents?

I didn`t mean there would be numerically fewer guilders or temple regents
than province regents- I meant that fewer have the ability to get RP from
temples. Anyone could get it from provinces, only a couple classes could
from temples.

What you`ve essentially done with your five regent roles is create
templates which give benefits but no real penalties. Do you give them an
ECL modifier? And they can pick a new template every domain turn if they
want? That`s a bit flighty compared to the original state of things.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Ideological power then, is a source of broadly applicable and widely
> distributed power to effect the activities of the whole province.
> Since the templar can control the way people understand their world,
> identify the way people ought to properly interact, and gain the
> prestige of spellcraft and ritual, they can excercise a great deal of
> latitude in the application of their power.

Precisely what I meant, Kenneth. Thank you for putting it so well.

> I don`t think that Ryan meant that the power of the templars was
> political in the sense that he meant it was bounded territorially (by
> the state`s formal lines of authority), nor that it is drawn from the
> operations of the local or provincial operation of the state.

Indeed, it is bounded by the population distribution of religious belief
(the words of priestess of Kriesha will carry little weight with the
followers of Avani, and vice versa), and it is drawn from the operations
of people`s own minds (I`d better not do that, or the gods will get angry
at me) and of individual human interactions (hmm, that`s the tenth person
today who`s told me they won`t shop here anymore because I spoke out
against something their priest said their god favors).

> My reading was that this use of political power was that "RP`s can
> have a game effect beyond the temple holding or the realm spell".

Or rather that RPs are the mechanic for all exercises of influence by any
regent, whether based on spells, public opinion, or anything else. Since
some of the influence of religion over people`s behavior comes from
ideology rather than spellcraft, some of the RPs from temple holdings
ought to be available to regents who can`t cast spells. In this case, the
important kind of belief is not whether the worshippers believe in the
temple`s god per se, but rather whether they believe the temple`s regent
when he says something like, "our god thinks the king is wicked, so you
shouldn`t pay your taxes until he abdicates."

> Guilders get respect that follows from great wealth and the actual
> satisfaction of their material needs and wants through economic
> processes.

Ditto. Plus their ability to make life materially easier for those who
support them, and materially harder for those who oppose them -- for
example, Guilder Kailen offers a 5% discount on their next purchase to
anyone who goes into a tavern and says, "That nasty el-Hadid cheated me!"


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> there`s belief there in each exchange, the belief that the coins are
> worth something and that they are being traded for something of
> roughly equivalent worth.

Interesting. That`s not something I`d considered, so your interpretation
makes more sense to me now, but I`m still not sure I buy it. =)

> That`s the only way I could justify in my mind getting
> RP from trade routes.

I would have said that controlling access to luxury goods is a rich source
of favors and punishments. In either your interpretation or mine,
however, I think TRs generate both too much money and too many RPs:
they`re much too unbalancing.

> I don`t think RP is just political power, because then unblooded lords
> could get it too.

Yeah, that is an issue. My current thought on the matter is that anyone
who becomes ruler of a holding gains RP from it; if the new regent has no
bloodline, they automatically spend themselves to create one for him.
For example, an unblooded person who suddenly acquires holdings which
would generate 21 RP does not gain those RP his first turn; instead, he
gets a bloodline of 6, because that`s what he`d get if he spent a total of
21 RP to raise his bloodline from zero in successive steps: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21.

I am considering having this be the case for any amount of potential RP
collection (i.e. domain power - bloodline) that is wasted, so that all
regents` bloodlines would slowly increase to match their domain power.
To continue the above example, this would mean that on turn 2, the regent
would gain 6 RP which could be spent on actions, but still waste 15
potential RP which instead would lift his bloodline from 6 to 8. On turn
3, he collects 8 RP and has his bloodline jump to 9, with 4 bloodline-
increasing RP left over. His bloodline continues to increase with time,
ever more slowly, hitting 12 on turn 6, 15 on turn 11, 18 on turn 22, and
not reaching the maximum of 21 until turn 58.

This reflects my belief that the prestige of an office gradually rubs off
on an officeholder who just does a mediocre job while avoiding major
screw-ups, and unknowns become somewhat known quickly but the pace of
growing affection for them tapers off; but that only really impressive
leaders (or those from famous dynasties) can much outshine the limitations
of their job. Having a system where lost bloodline points grow themselves
back over time would make me more willing to have handling of random
events cause minor bonuses or penalties to bloodline score as well as
stored RP; again in a modern political sense, scandals not only cause you
to forfeit "political capital" you`d been saving up but also make it
harder to acquire more in future, until enough time passes and people
forget and say things like, "well, he is the president, after all" and
sort of give support by default.

It also works in the throwaway comment made in the rulebook about
bloodline score increasing significantly upon attaining high office: the
section about determining a child`s bloodline score says it wouldn`t go
*up* if its mother "became High Queen". I tend to think that family
members` bloodlines should continue to influence each other throughout
life, but I do like the idea that some of the ability to wield huge piles
of RPs just comes with the office.

> I think it`s similar to the way D&D gods get power from
> the belief of their worshippers; same way for regents. So it`s more:
> RP = belief in power
> than
> RP = power.

This is an interesting idea, and may actually be more akin to what the
designers had in mind, but I still would prefer to try to save RP=power.
That said, your way might be the only really consistent interpretation of
RP-based magic. Anyone else care to comment?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Ryan Caveney writes:
> I think TRs generate both too much money and too
> many RPs: they`re much too unbalancing.

This is true as they are written, but that assumes a level of local trade that I think pre- supposes a railroad network. Most trade was historically long distance trade. Like all holdings, I regard trade routes as generally pre-existing. My conception of trade routes is based in place theory, and so I have established 4 trade routes that run across the continent from east to west, with more local trade networks connecting to one of these main lines. The way it works out, most guilders have one trade route. Some have none.